Posts Tagged ‘international’

Now it must be over. It’s not like Iowa or Ohio, Texas or Pennsylvania; this time Hillary Clinton has been well and truly defeated. She squeaked home in Indiana but got smashed in North Carolina. Mathematically she cannot win, and her narrative has been destroyed. Sadly there are no more game-changers or deciders; the time has come for her to drop out of the race.

As a Clinton supporter it hurts to say this, but people were ready for a woman president. They just didn’t want a continuation of the Clinton dynasty. Even though the 1990s were a peaceful and prosperous time, Mrs. Clinton as a figure is polarising and divisive. Moreover, Barack Obama ran a better more organised campaign; the agent of change therefore beat out the woman of experience.

But Barack Obama now has issues as well as baggage. Things have been brought out in the campaign that in the general election could wreck his chances: connections to his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright; associations with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers; and unpatriotic comments made by his wife. His speech in which he described Pennsylvanians as bitter people who cling to their guns and religion will not be forgotten by the Republican machine.

Obama also has to operate with both a damaged party and the Clintons. This is not restricted to Bill and Hillary; the millions of people who went out to vote for her in the long campaign will be upset and bitter. It’s important to note that in the primaries alone, she took more votes that Obama. His task is to bring them back onside after a long, unforgiving campaign.

The unity ticket is perhaps the best solution to his problems, for it would almost be unbeatable. Barack Obama has always had great support from African-Americans (who voted for him in some states by an 85-point margin), young voters and upper-class liberals. However he has failed to convince the Reagan Democrats: downscale, white working-class men and women; the sort he alienated with the ‘bitter speech’.

Obama-Clinton would seal up that vote and help heal the party. Clinton would naturally bring that support with her, along with older voters and lower income families. Together they also have a greater chance of winning the swing states: Ohio; Florida; Pennsylvania. Without her on the ticket, her more conservative base could easily break party lines and vote for McCain.

The Democratic Party has the best chance since 1992 of taking the White House back from the Republicans. Yet somehow they always seem to hit the self-destruct button. Obama can’t risk becoming another Michael Dukasis or John Kerry. Moreover he cannot afford having his chance to make history being killed off by the Clintons and their wounded voting bloc.

John McCain must not be underestimated. He is a popular figure with broad support on the right and the left. On top of that he’ll also have the GOP machine behind him, with operatives like Karl Rove throwing dirt at Obama at every turn. It is the unity ticket therefore that has the best chance of derailing the Straight Talk Express.

This is written in response to Maddy Fry’s “Getting aid where it’s needed”, which I felt was inaccurate and misleading on many counts and written by a person who has no idea “about the current complexity reality of development aid”.

Having worked in Africa all my life, and specifically in the development sector for nearly a decade, in three different countries, I would like to correct some of the assumptions she makes. The entire article was so badly written, in such monolithic terms and with such a narrow perspective of very real, urgent, pressing human development issues so I will try to break down my response to a few headers.

1. Nature of countries

To speak of Africa as a monolith is dangerous. Every country is different from the next, geographically, climatically, historically, etc. And within each country, the number of tribes and communities with their respective religions, customs and languages vary so much that it makes no sense to speak about an entire continent like it is one simple village.

2.The Nature of Aid

Aid giving varies in its approach. Sometimes it is the government’s policy to accept aid as budget support through what is known as the Sector Wide Approach. Other times, the aid is channelled directly to individual projects. Alternatively, international donors set up their own projects. And other times the aid is given to local community foundations to monitor and channel the funds and make grants to needy communities.

Therefore, the way aid is distributed varies from country to country, from government to government, and from donor to donor. It is wrong to state that the way aid has been distributed has not changed since the 1980s. It changes all the time, and while there are continually problems and loopholes, there are some agencies and some governments also that want to see it improved time in terms of priority setting, partnerships, and most importantly accountability and transparency.

When the aid comes in through credible agencies, many times it is strictly monitored, though many times it is not. There are very often strict grant management contracts, donor compliances and legalities that are imposed on the communities and projects receiving the funds, from those donors that are credible and understand development.

Corruption is inevitable. There will always be ways that monies can be misappropriated, by government officials, by community leaders and indeed even by the donor employees themselves.. But there are also a number of very good projects that have been implemented successfully and benefited many communities, despite the many challenges. Lets not forget the beneficiaries.

3. Nature of governments

Whatever the ideology of a government maybe – communist or other – it is the citizens in that country that suffer; those that are ill, poor and have no hope for a better life and those who have no voice.

When a government’s rule is through terror, the havoc and destruction that is caused has no limits. Is the author suggesting that those innocent victims of corrupt governments should be punished for their governments over which they have no control?

When governments are inexperienced, inefficient and so on, should the world forget those that suffer under those regimes? Where is our common humanity forgotten in all the preaching about the best way to do things?

4. Nature of projects:

Most international donor agencies (such as Ford Foundation, Action Aid, Aga Khan Foundation, BRAC etc) and government donor agencies (e.g. USAID, DFID, SIDA, CIDA) etc work cross sectorally and multi sectorally. What this means is that they work in education, health, rural development, micro-finance, micro-credit, civil society enhancement, advocacy and so on. They work in each of these sectors, and furthermore across them, such as health education, training for management etcetera.

Indeed many of these agencies work in partnership with each other and also with the governments in question (where possible) to ensure that projects are rooted in the needs of citizens, that the projects are culturally sensitive and relevant and sustainable in the long term.

It is true that not all projects are successful. But not all are a waste. The nature of development work is such. Not all work in ways that are open and transparent, but many do.

Development work itself has developed. Successful models from Asia are experimented in Africa and vice versa. However, no two projects are the same, as the needs of no two communities within a country are the same; the needs differ from one area to another and depend on geography, religion, government policies, climate, and the communities historical relations with its neighbours and so on.

Therefore, credible organisations view each project an experiment based on best practices, on previous models and try to ensure that as far as possible there are measurable, sustainable outcomes, which will improve the overall quality of people’s lives.

5. Economic development

No country can develop by making investments in only one sector. Investments are needed in human development in capacity building, in health care, in education, in housing, in financial services for micro credit, in rural development and so on. This is the way to self-reliancy. It can never happen just through trade and economic development. Economic growth on its own is not sustainable in the long term without basic human rights and needs being met and upheld at the very basic level.

6. Civil Society

Civil society organisations are those organisations that range all the way from international NGOs all the way through varied organisations, such as women’s groups, self-help organisations, trade associations, fishermen’s co-operatives, and local NGOs. They are groups of citizens who have come together around a common cause. Not all civil societies are good, like terrorist groups. However, they are critical for development. This is where citizens have a forum to raise their concerns. This where they can decide on what their issues are, and what is the most pressing need, for instance the choice between agricultural training or medicines, or advocacy for better policies?

By arguing that all monies should be channelled through good (if there is such a thing) governments, the author of the article is ignoring not only a very significant partner in development but also more importantly, the place where citizens are actively participating in democracy. Civil society organisations need capacity building, training, support, to be guided how to put structures in place to ensure accountability and transparency within themselves, and at the same time understand how to hold governments accountable to their people.

Therefore the statement “NGOs lack a certain perspective” reflects the fact that the author has no real understanding of the role, nor the constituents of NGOs, (which can be good, bad and otherwise.)

7. Good governance and wise development

This is not the responsibility of “us, the developed world” to ensure it happens.

It is the responsibility of all global citizens, who understand that events in another part of the world can very quickly affect and impact one another. It is for those who have a better and clearer understanding about our common humanity to bring about change; in small ways, big ways, through trade, through aid in health, education micro finance, rural development, advocacy for better rights, civil society enhancement and through “multi sectoral ” inputs – to build trust, confidence and hope for citizens who live in countries out of no choice and no fault of their own.

I hope that this gives the author, a very small perspective into the complex, multi – layered nature of development, aid, Africa and the world.

There’s no escaping from the fact that aid-giving is one of the most polarized issues in current geopolitics. The debate on development aid being so polarized, between those who believe that all aid given to the Third World is a waste and those who believe that more, not less giving, is the answer. There must be a less tired solution. Read the rest of this entry »